HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Game 7: Vancouver Canucks vs. Chicago Blackhawks (Part VI)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-25-2011, 07:22 PM
  #76
Ubi Sunt
QQ Joe
 
Ubi Sunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,607
vCash: 500
It wasn't even a commercial timeout. At the first stoppage after the 10 minute mark they shovel the ice away from the goals.

Ubi Sunt is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:23 PM
  #77
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Sunt View Post
It wasn't even a commercial timeout. At the first stoppage after the 10 minute mark they shovel the ice away from the goals.
Again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Please point me to the NHL rulebook provision that states that an icing call would not follow the same treatment as it would with TV timeouts.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:23 PM
  #78
hplovecraft
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Please point me to the NHL rulebook provision that states that an icing call would not follow the same treatment as it would with TV timeouts.
Why does it need to specifically say that? The rule you quote repeatedly states "no commercial time-out" in a number of different circumstances; however, there are NO commercial time-outs in OT already, so none of that rule applies.

None.

This isn't complicated.

hplovecraft is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:23 PM
  #79
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by amit916 View Post
Did he? (not asking sarcastically) But Gillis questioning the refs is not the same as a Coach.
Yes he did. He claimed that Chicago would have scored 4 goals on a 5 minute penalty that the Canucks should have gotten but didn't.

Also, what about Scotty Bowman going to the officials after game 2? Albeit it was done privately, he seems to have had a huge effect on the way the series has been officiated when you compare the first two games with the next 4.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:24 PM
  #80
RollingPuck
Registered User
 
RollingPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski Powder View Post
I'm sorry, but to say the Blackhawks aren't obstructing is just ridiculous. I'm not saying we lost because of it, but keep the calls even. If you're gonna penalize Torres for that goaltender interference, you have to call Bolland's slash on Sedin and a ton of other non-calls. The calls they missed weren't questionable, they were blatantly obvious.
Calls are missed on both sides, every game, every series.

That the Canucks are the only team whining about it from GM to fan base is a reflection on them, not the officiating.

RollingPuck is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:24 PM
  #81
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Rule 87.1:



I guess the rules don't apply when Chicago gets caught on an icing call in overtime?
How does this rule apply in OT when there are no TV Timeouts? This wasn't a TV timeout, Chicago requested the ice be cleaned which can only be requested after the 10min mark in OT.

There are no rules regarding this, so it's kind of like a circumvention of the rule, much like circumventing the cap. If there is no rule against it, the ref's have to allow it.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:25 PM
  #82
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by hplovecraft View Post
Why does it need to specifically say that? The rule you quote repeatedly states "no commercial time-out" in a number of different circumstances; however, there are NO commercial time-outs in OT already, so none of that rule applies.

None.

This isn't complicated.
I can't even find a provision that states there's a mini break at the midway point of the period. But even so, wouldn't it be logical that icings receive the same treatment as it is still a non-coaches timeout?

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:25 PM
  #83
Avs_19
Peter the Great
 
Avs_19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,111
vCash: 500
Just wondering......

Who was on the ice for the Hawks when they were called for that icing? Who did the Canucks being out after they cleaned/fixed the ice?

Avs_19 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:25 PM
  #84
Dump and Chase
Hand of God
 
Dump and Chase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Larmer View Post
uh yea, so do you have a clip? I haven't seen the play and honestly just want to see what the fuss is about

Pretty standard really:

Crawford freezes the puck.
Sedin tries to pitchfork it out from underneath him.
Bolland 2 hands Sedins stick.
Sedin contemplates a dive.
Vancouver fans add another excuse to their monumental implosion.

Dump and Chase is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:26 PM
  #85
Musicman798
Registered User
 
Musicman798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Please point me to the NHL rulebook provision that states that an icing call would not follow the same treatment as it would with TV timeouts.
Oooh! I can play this game. Please point out to me where in the rule you quoted it says anything about scraping the ice? You can't just look at one rule and assume that the same principle applies in every other situation.

Musicman798 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:26 PM
  #86
Ski Powder
Watch out, I bite.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere Up North
Country: Canada
Posts: 970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by amit916 View Post
Man, that Mike Gillis really is whining there isn't he... he's making it sound as if it's a fixed game...

Anyone can rattle off missed calls (ON BOTH SIDES). The refs aren't the reason your team blew a 3-0 lead. Be a man, and play the game. The Canucks should be good enough that a missed call here and there SHOULDN'T affect the outcome of their season. You're asking for trouble if you put yourself in a position where you're dependent on a call.
It shouldn't but it could affect the outcome. Refs in the playoffs are the same refs in the regular season, and really, it's not like refs have never changed a game (ie. a team won when it wasn't supposed to). That being said, as I said in previous posts, in games 4 and 5 the Canucks deserved to lose. As for game 6, I'm saying there were missed calls but if Chicago would've hypothetically killed them off then fair enough, nothing changes and then you can pull out the "blame your players for not playing well enough" card.

Plus, it's not like I'm Coach Q here saying we would've scored 4 goals on 4 extra minutes of powerplay time. But considering the Canucks were mainly (I say mainly because I know Chicago had their push backs|) dictating play, I'm pretty confident they'd have scored 1 goal on a powerplay or two. But as I said, if Chicago stopped them, then fair enough.

Ski Powder is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:26 PM
  #87
Ubi Sunt
QQ Joe
 
Ubi Sunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,607
vCash: 500
The ice was pretty messed up around the Hawks net because virtually the entire period was played there.

Ubi Sunt is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:26 PM
  #88
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,782
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Pressure is obviously all on the Canucks. Not only for the choke factor, but Chicago has already beaten the Canucks twice in the playoffs, and has their Cup. For the Blackhawks to pull this off would gravy. Unlike the Flyers last year, the Blackhawks don't have anything to prove.
Yep

I believe the phrase that best applies is "Playing with House Money"

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:27 PM
  #89
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianCommitted View Post
Nope. But I sure wish I had one of Bollie's hit on Hamhuis
When complaining about the officiating, people tend to forget about the incredibly soft plays like that one by Hamhuis that define games.

It's been this way for the past two series with these teams: Canucks look like world-beaters early, fade, start giving up bad goals, and ultimately lose to a team who takes it to them more and more the longer the series goes. Basically, the Hawks evolve during the playoffs while the Canucks unravel.

At this rate i'll be shocked if the Canucks take game 7. But the win they'd earn might be enough to propel them far. It would be miraculous, despite their standing this season.

TOML is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:27 PM
  #90
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
There is a reason the Canucks get called for much more penalties than Chicago. They can't keep up with the speed at times, they get frustrated and take stupid penalties, etc.

Clearly they aren't playing within the rules as much as Chicago is.

Show me a penalty that should of been called against Chicago, and i'll show you a penalty that should have been called against Vancouver. Get over it you bunch of freaking babies.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:28 PM
  #91
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicman798 View Post
Oooh! I can play this game. Please point out to me where in the rule you quoted it says anything about scraping the ice? You can't just look at one rule and assume that the same principle applies in every other situation.
There is no rule that says anything about scraping the ice. Ergo, it was a blatant opportunity for the referees to find a way to give Chicago an extra break.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:28 PM
  #92
Dump and Chase
Hand of God
 
Dump and Chase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
How does this rule apply in OT when there are no TV Timeouts? This wasn't a TV timeout, Chicago requested the ice be cleaned which can only be requested after the 10min mark in OT.

There are no rules regarding this, so it's kind of like a circumvention of the rule, much like circumventing the cap. If there is no rule against it, the ref's have to allow it.


This exactly.

You got outplayed Van fans.


Deal with it.

Dump and Chase is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:29 PM
  #93
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
There is a reason the Canucks get called for much more penalties than Chicago. They can't keep up with the speed at times, they get frustrated and take stupid penalties, etc.

Clearly they aren't playing within the rules as much as Chicago is.

Show me a penalty that should of been called against Chicago, and i'll show you a penalty that should have been called against Vancouver. Get over it you bunch of freaking babies.
You're right. The Canucks couldn't keep up with the speed of the Hawks which is what led to Bolland 2-hand slashing Sedin's stick that went undetected, and it's what led to Burrows getting clipped with a high stick that went undetected. It's what led to Scott punching burrows in the face which went uncalled too. Right? Did I get that right?

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:29 PM
  #94
Avs_19
Peter the Great
 
Avs_19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Sunt View Post
The ice was pretty messed up around the Hawks net because virtually the entire period was played there.
If they didn't take an official timeout to fix the ice there would probably be people complaining about the ice surface in the Hawks zone.

"The puck is bouncing all over the place in the offensive zone for the Canucks. They aren't fixing it on purpose because it's a conspiracy!"

Avs_19 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:30 PM
  #95
rypper
Registered User
 
rypper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
There is a reason the Canucks get called for much more penalties than Chicago. They can't keep up with the speed at times, they get frustrated and take stupid penalties, etc.

Clearly they aren't playing within the rules as much as Chicago is.

Show me a penalty that should of been called against Chicago, and i'll show you a penalty that should have been called against Vancouver. Get over it you bunch of freaking babies.
missed calls happen both sides, but you can admit the hit on bieksa should have been a call.

rypper is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:30 PM
  #96
Musicman798
Registered User
 
Musicman798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
There is no rule that says anything about scraping the ice. Ergo, it was a blatant opportunity for the referees to find a way to give Chicago an extra break.
So this happens, there is no precedent set for the situation in the past and the refs make a decision. It happens to go against your team, so that must mean the refs are out to get you. So sorry for your loss.

Musicman798 is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:30 PM
  #97
Mules
Ouch!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMapleLaughs View Post
When complaining about the officiating, people tend to forget about the incredibly soft plays like that one by Hamhuis that define games.

It's been this way for the past two series with these teams: Canucks look like world-beaters early, fade, start giving up bad goals, and ultimately lose to a team who takes it to them more and more the longer the series goes. Basically, the Hawks evolve during the playoffs while the Canucks unravel.

At this rate i'll be shocked if the Canucks take game 7. But the win they'd earn might be enough to propel them far. It would be miraculous, despite their standing this season.
I am the opposite. If Canucks take game 7, I don't think they will go far. There is nothing that I see from game 4,5 and 6 that shows sense of urgency. Sure, they played better in game 6, but they have not step it up on the playoff level. Other teams are licking their chops right now, they know if Canucks get behind and under pressure more likely they will choke.

Mules is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:32 PM
  #98
Dump and Chase
Hand of God
 
Dump and Chase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
There is no rule that says anything about scraping the ice. Ergo, it was a blatant opportunity for the referees to find a way to give Chicago an extra break.

Hi. I am the VP of marketing for Alcan aluminum foil. Please PM about a possible sponsorship offer I have for you.

Dump and Chase is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:32 PM
  #99
Ski Powder
Watch out, I bite.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere Up North
Country: Canada
Posts: 970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollingPuck View Post
Calls are missed on both sides, every game, every series.

That the Canucks are the only team whining about it from GM to fan base is a reflection on them, not the officiating.
As others have said above me, Coach Q whined about the 4 goals in 5 minutes thing and Bowman after game 2. Canucks aren't the only ones.

Ski Powder is offline  
Old
04-25-2011, 07:32 PM
  #100
hplovecraft
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
I can't even find a provision that states there's a mini break at the midway point of the period. But even so, wouldn't it be logical that icings receive the same treatment as it is still a non-coaches timeout?
No, what is logical is following just what is written in the rule: "no commercial time-out." That is the only wording that matters -- there is no such term as a "non-coaches time-out" in the rule. It's quite clear if you just follow it as it is written and apply it to circumstances like this.

Not sure where the 10-minute rule is locate or if it's some sort of addendum recently.

hplovecraft is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.